U gona go into Liberia and get ur asses handed to ya?

[ghhhhhost]

just wondering..seems to coincide with US agenda..u know..helping the poor and alll that bullshit....

oooh..and u can possibly win some of the black vote..u can use that WE WENT INTO LIBERIA TO HELP BLACK FOLK argument during the next election...

go for it war-mongers

[sassa]

:laugh:

it's all about the votes, baby....

[magellanmax]

I think the spinmasters are hard at work

Hope some good comes outta this

[seximofo2k]

not for nothing guys but you really have to stop criticizing Bush for everything he does. I thought it was wrong when Clinton could do no right according to republicans and you guys are guilty of the same thing. I guaruntee that if he didnt go into Liberia the comeback would be "he only cares about middle east oil". I try to debate someone and this mentality is the stereotype in which i am labeled it bothers me....

[skince55]

Originally posted by seximofo2k

not for nothing guys but you really have to stop criticizing Bush for everything he does. I thought it was wrong when Clinton could do no right according to republicans and you guys are guilty of the same thing. I guaruntee that if he didnt go into Liberia the comeback would be "he only cares about middle east oil". I try to debate someone and this mentality is the stereotype in which i am labeled it bothers me....

:clap:

[bigpoppanils]

i think we should get involved. The thing i hated the most about Clinton's presidency was his complete ignorance of the civil wars in africa.

plus its really pissing off Pat Robertson. which usually makes for great comedy...he's the white conservative version of al sharpton

[magellanmax]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

i think we should get involved. The thing i hated the most about Clinton's presidency was his complete ignorance of the civil wars in africa.

plus its really pissing off Pat Robertson. which usually makes for great comedy, especially when he blatantly contradicts himself.

Not to mention the period that over 100,000 people died in Liberia under taylors' rule....which essentially qualifies as genocide,...but we did squat. You gotta admit, the timing is awful. Even the most ignorant can see it.

Ask yourself, when was the last time we commited troops to combat without a "back-end".... neither can I. You say.."we are now.."

But then again...the election campaign is in full swing,..so xcuse the skeptics for not really jumping onto the bandwagon.

just my take

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by magellanmax

Not to mention the period that over 100,000 people died in Liberia under taylors' rule....which essentially qualifies as genocide,...but we did squat. You gotta admit, the timing is awful. Even the most ignorant can see it.

Ask yourself, when was the last time we commited troops to combat without a "back-end".... neither can I. You say.."we are now.."

But then again...the election campaign is in full swing,..so xcuse the skeptics for not really jumping onto the bandwagon.

just my take

whats suprising to me is that Bush is favoring Muslim rebels over a Christian president.....and most of the normal Muslim haters find nothing wrong with it.

[seximofo2k]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

i think we should get involved. The thing i hated the most about Clinton's presidency was his complete ignorance of the civil wars in africa.

plus its really pissing off Pat Robertson. which usually makes for great comedy...he's the white conservative version of al sharpton

Theirs a few reasons why i disagree with you. First off America can't be the worlds police force. To try to solve the problems of every country is impossible, we dont have the manpower nor the resources. This was my disagreement over the argument that it didnt matter if Saddam was a threat or not cause now the "reason" for taking out Saddam was the liberation of the Iraqi people. Second off if we try to get involved in these civil wars we are going to end up in another Vietnam situation. Somalia taught us that lesson and I believe that will lead to reluctance from every future president over whether or not we should enter into the affairs of Africa.

[kramadas]

Liberia is a tough situation overall. However, since we invaded Iraq due to humanitarian reasons (I guess thats one big reason nowadays, since the WMD thing seems to be fading), then be consistent and aid Liberia. After that, Congo, Zimbabwe, S. Leone, etc, etc.

I guess my question to anyone who supported war on Iraq so as to remove a cruel dictator, but not these countries' people: where do we draw the line? Why liberate one country's people, but not another's?

[sassa]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Liberia is a tough situation overall. However, since we invaded Iraq due to humanitarian reasons (I guess thats one big reason nowadays, since the WMD thing seems to be fading), then be consistent and aid Liberia. After that, Congo, Zimbabwe, S. Leone, etc, etc.

I guess my question to anyone who supported war on Iraq so as to remove a cruel dictator, but not these countries' people: where do we draw the line? Why liberate one country's people, but not another's?

yes. if the US is going to use the humanitarian excuse to invade a territory, they might as well invade half the world, include their neighbors mexico, cuba, half of central america, etc. bottom line:a state does not act on anything unless it coincides with any personal interests it has itself. there is no way in hell anyone can deny that the US will not exploit iraq's natural resources while they are there. funny how during the first few days of this imposed war, the first thing the US did was make sure the oil fields were preserved. yeah, saddam was a bastard, but so is mugabe. so was taylor. so was yeltsin. you didn't see the US giving a damn what went on in zimbabwe, liberia, or russia.

if iraq didn't have as much oil as it did, i doubt the US would have cared about the poor people of iraq very much.

but then again, i know i'm going to get insulted for my words.....

but it's not far from the truth.

[skince55]

Originally posted by sassa

funny how during the first few days of this imposed war, the first thing the US did was make sure the oil fields were preserved.

Did you forget the Kuwati oil fields that were set on fire by saddam during the first gulf war? Should we have invaded a country, then tried to rebuild it after having let their most abundant natural resource burn? How were the Iraqi's supposed to get back on their feet if we let Saddam torch the oil fields? Perhaps they could have sold some sand to the U.S. states on the coast to help combat the problem of beach erosion, they do have plenty of sand.

yeah, saddam was a bastard, but so is mugabe. so was taylor. so was yeltsin. you didn't see the US giving a damn what went on in zimbabwe, liberia, or russia.

if iraq didn't have as much oil as it did, i doubt the US would have cared about the poor people of iraq very much.

I think Iraq was a target because we didnt want WMD's in the hands of psycho religious nuts who have an inherent hate for Americans, who think the more Americans you kill the more likely you will be to be with Allah

[igloo]

Originally posted by skince55

Did you forget the Kuwati oil fields that were set on fire by saddam during the first gulf war? Should we have invaded a country, then tried to rebuild it after having let their most abundant natural resource burn? How were the Iraqi's supposed to get back on their feet if we let Saddam torch the oil fields? Perhaps they could have sold some sand to the U.S. states on the coast to help combat the problem of beach erosion, they do have plenty of sand.

I think Iraq was a target because we didnt want WMD's in the hands of psycho religious nuts who have an inherent hate for Americans, who think the more Americans you kill the more likely you will be to be with Allah

Good response......it is amazing that she continually, voluntarily demonstrates her stupidity and ignorance

[igloo]

I have stated this before, and it it worth repeating....

Where is the great, resourceful United Nations?.....

To those who were against the war in Iraq who say we should send troops to Liberia...

Why?..are the lives of those is Liberia worth more than the life of an Iraqi?.....how can useless Kofi demand US troops in Liberia, but be against sending troops to Iraq for the Iraqi people......in Kofi's mind, are the Liberian people more valuable than the Iraqi people...because they are African?.....is that racism?...how about blowhard Mandela--does he need the crazy George Bush now?..

Also, why is Kofi demanding the US take the lead in Liberia, but not in Iraq......hmmmmm.....why is it the US has to take the lead--where is Russia, France, Germany, etc....hmmmmm--Is it because once again, only the US can bail out the U.N.....

To those antiwar zealots who are deploying reverse spin by saying the U.S. would be hypocrites by NOT sending troops to Liberia to help those people because we used that reason for Iraq......

Nice try, but hopefully you are smarter than that, and realize the monumental differences in the two....unless you believe the US military is only a humanitarian instrument, and should not be used for national security....

Also, leftists love to base their anti-Americanism on the fact we stick our noses everywhere, yet scream when we don't...hmmmm...

I think the U.S. should ask the U.N. to draft a resolution to send peacekeeping forces to Liberia, similar to France and Germany asking to draft a resolution to send peacekeepers to Iraq....

Also, what would the role of US forces be?.....what is the exit strategy?......if Taylor steps down, who runs the govt?....the American public who supports sending troops---what happens if an American soldier gets killed by a 16 yrd old AK-47 Kot-crazed Liberian?........is that "acceptable", but an American soldier who gets killed in Iraq removing a brutal, dispicable dictator is not?

Bottom line, no matter what the US does here, they will get blamed or be the subject of endless critics.....the U.S. can't win......

But once again, it shows--if the US does not act, shit never gets done...

[skince55]

Originally posted by igloo

I have stated this before, and it it worth repeating....

Where is the great, resourceful United Nations?.....

To those who were against the war in Iraq who say we should send troops to Liberia...

Why?..are the lives of those is Liberia worth more than the life of an Iraqi?.....how can useless Kofi demand US troops in Liberia, but be against sending troops to Iraq for the Iraqi people......in Kofi's mind, are the Liberian people more valuable than the Iraqi people...because they are African?.....is that racism?...how about blowhard Mandela--does he need the crazy George Bush now?..

Also, why is Kofi demanding the US take the lead in Liberia, but not in Iraq......hmmmmm.....why is it the US has to take the lead--where is Russia, France, Germany, etc....hmmmmm--Is it because once again, only the US can bail out the U.N.....

To those antiwar zealots who are deploying reverse spin by saying the U.S. would be hypocrites by NOT sending troops to Liberia to help those people because we used that reason for Iraq......

Nice try, but hopefully you are smarter than that, and realize the monumental differences in the two....unless you believe the US military is only a humanitarian instrument, and should not be used for national security....

Also, leftists love to base their anti-Americanism on the fact we stick our noses everywhere, yet scream when we don't...hmmmm...

I think the U.S. should ask the U.N. to draft a resolution to send peacekeeping forces to Liberia, similar to France and Germany asking to draft a resolution to send peacekeepers to Iraq....

Also, what would the role of US forces be?.....what is the exit strategy?......if Taylor steps down, who runs the govt?....the American public who supports sending troops---what happens if an American soldier gets killed by a 16 yrd old AK-47 Kot-crazed Liberian?........is that "acceptable", but an American soldier who gets killed in Iraq removing a brutal, dispicable dictator is not?

Bottom line, no matter what the US does here, they will get blamed or be the subject of endless critics.....the U.S. can't win......

But once again, it shows--if the US does not act, shit never gets done...

[seximofo2k]

You really can't compare the 2 situations Taylor is requesting US troops obviously that was not the case in Iraq. Regardless I really don't think the US should be responsible for sending troops to remedy every situation. If it is a joint UN effort then I have not problem with the US aiding the effort in some fashion but I am against another Unilateral mission

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by igloo

I have stated this before, and it it worth repeating....

Where is the great, resourceful United Nations?.....

To those who were against the war in Iraq who say we should send troops to Liberia...

Why?..are the lives of those is Liberia worth more than the life of an Iraqi?.....how can useless Kofi demand US troops in Liberia, but be against sending troops to Iraq for the Iraqi people......in Kofi's mind, are the Liberian people more valuable than the Iraqi people...because they are African?.....is that racism?...how about blowhard Mandela--does he need the crazy George Bush now?..

Also, why is Kofi demanding the US take the lead in Liberia, but not in Iraq......hmmmmm.....why is it the US has to take the lead--where is Russia, France, Germany, etc....hmmmmm--Is it because once again, only the US can bail out the U.N.....

To those antiwar zealots who are deploying reverse spin by saying the U.S. would be hypocrites by NOT sending troops to Liberia to help those people because we used that reason for Iraq......

Nice try, but hopefully you are smarter than that, and realize the monumental differences in the two....unless you believe the US military is only a humanitarian instrument, and should not be used for national security....

Also, leftists love to base their anti-Americanism on the fact we stick our noses everywhere, yet scream when we don't...hmmmm...

I think the U.S. should ask the U.N. to draft a resolution to send peacekeeping forces to Liberia, similar to France and Germany asking to draft a resolution to send peacekeepers to Iraq....

Also, what would the role of US forces be?.....what is the exit strategy?......if Taylor steps down, who runs the govt?....the American public who supports sending troops---what happens if an American soldier gets killed by a 16 yrd old AK-47 Kot-crazed Liberian?........is that "acceptable", but an American soldier who gets killed in Iraq removing a brutal, dispicable dictator is not?

Bottom line, no matter what the US does here, they will get blamed or be the subject of endless critics.....the U.S. can't win......

But once again, it shows--if the US does not act, shit never gets done...

[kramadas]

Originally posted by igloo

I have stated this before, and it it worth repeating....

Where is the great, resourceful United Nations?.....

To those who were against the war in Iraq who say we should send troops to Liberia...

To those antiwar zealots who are deploying reverse spin by saying the U.S. would be hypocrites by NOT sending troops to Liberia to help those people because we used that reason for Iraq......

Nice try, but hopefully you are smarter than that, and realize the monumental differences in the two....unless you believe the US military is only a humanitarian instrument, and should not be used for national security....

True, but then why were so many pro-war people vehemently stating it was a humanitarian mission in Iraq? Was that the sole purpose of going in? Where is the interests in national security? There are still no WMDs in sight. Most of the recent opinion pieces posted on this board sidestepped the WMD issue by saying it was in the interests of the Iraqi people to go in and get rid of Saddam. If that is the case, what was so special about Iraq and not places like Nigeria (before), Congo, Zimbabwe, etc?

I'm not for and against going into Liberia right now. Just asking those people who use the humanitarian issue as justification for invading Iraq - what is so special about Iraq over, for example, North Korea or Cuba?

I know the issue is not so cut black and white, and the situations are different, but one cannot deny that the humanitarian card played a huge role in justifying the war against Iraq...at least now.

I think I'm now coming to the conclusion that the UN is a defunct body.

However, if WMDs are found, then I stand corrected.

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

True, but then why were so many pro-war people vehemently stating it was a humanitarian mission in Iraq? Was that the sole purpose of going in? Where is the interests in national security? There are still no WMDs in sight. Most of the recent opinion pieces posted on this board sidestepped the WMD issue by saying it was in the interests of the Iraqi people to go in and get rid of Saddam. If that is the case, what was so special about Iraq and not places like Nigeria (before), Congo, Zimbabwe, etc?

I'm not for and against going into Liberia right now. Just asking those people who use the humanitarian issue as justification for invading Iraq - what is so special about Iraq over, for example, North Korea or Cuba?

I know the issue is not so cut black and white, and the situations are different, but one cannot deny that the humanitarian card played a huge role in justifying the war against Iraq...at least now.

I think I'm now coming to the conclusion that the UN is a defunct body.

However, if WMDs are found, then I stand corrected.

I do not think pro-war people vehemently state that Iraq was solely a humanitarian cause---I think they vehemently state that it was one of the reasons for going to war......I think there were many reasons for this war--WMD being one of them (and national security goes beyond just WMD in this case).

Now, you know where I stand on WMD. To be short, they were there in 1998, the UN and foreign intelligence services all agreed they were there, Clinton too said they were there, Iraq used them, Saddam did not become good overnight and destroy them and then not prove it, and the issue was how to disarm-not if Iraq had them. My concern is where are they--not if they had them. That is the intelligence failure that we should be focusing on.

But I do think when pro-war people do scream about the humanitarian cause, it is usually to point to the hypocrisy of the left (who supported Kosovo and Bosnia for example), the uselessness of the U.N., and the screams of the antiwar crowd who do not seem to care about the plight of the Iraqi people or offer up unrealistic solutions(military action was the ONLY way to take down that brutal regime). It seems the anti-war crowd too equally diminishes the atrocities in Iraq--which proved to be worse than our worst expectations.

The Bush administration never said this was just about WMD (granted this was front and center), or just a humanitarian cause---but a collection of the whole. I recall Bush's initial, excellent speech to the UN where he spoke about both WMD and the atrocities.

Also, because the U.S. does not intervene in other countries, does that mean we should never intervene?....Think about it, ...people actually are projecting a very flawed arguement:...Because the U.S. does not intervene in Cuba or Congo or Liberia, then they can not intervene anywhere else---equal suffering for all!!

It is impossible for the U.S. to intervene for every humanitarian cause...impossible...and, should for the most part only do so when national security interests are at stake (i.e. Iraq), or I guess bail out the continual failures of the UN.

And I agree with you----if people just use the humanitarian card for justification in Iraq, then they are guilty of hypocrisy---but I do not see much of that--I simply see pro-war peeps bringing it up because the antiwar crowd diminishes too easily.

But look at the reverse---why is Kofi asking for US intervention in Liberia but not in Iraq?...is that not hypocrisy?

[seximofo2k]

If you really want to simplify the Iraq debate what it boils down to is two differences in opinion on foreign policies which is right is in the eyes of history......